Indian Journal of Hill Farming

(1)

57

Content list available at http://epubs.icar.org.in, www.kiran.nic.in; ISSN: 0970-6429

June 2021, Volume 34, Issue I, Page 57-62

Assessment of Suitable Remunerative Cropping System in New Alluvial Zone of West Bengal

Hriday Kamal Tarafder¹

.

Amrit Tamang²

.

Manabendra Roy³

.

Agniswar Jha Chakraborty⁴

*1Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, Regional Research Station (Hill Zone), UBKV, Kalimpong.

2Dept. of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, UBKV, Pundibari. Coochbehar.

3Dept. of Agronomy, BCKV, Mohanpur. Nadia.

1Gramin Krishi Mousam Sewa, AMFU-Kalimpong, RRS (Hill Zone), UBKV, Kalimpong.

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article history:

Received :

Revision: November, 2020 Accepted5 December, 2020 --- Key words: Cropping system, rice equivalent yield, net return, B: C ratio.

---

The experiment was carried out for find out the best cropping system in the New Alluvial Zone at Central Reserach Farm, Gayeshpur, Nadia, BCKV on 2011-12 reveals that the highest Rice Equivalent Yield (REY) was observe in Rice-Potato-Jute (CS2) (15427 kg ha^-1) cropping system followed by Rice-Potato-Maize (CS3) (11785 kg ha^-1) and Rice- Rice (CS1) (9188 kg ha^-1) respectively. A significant increase in REY (kg ha^-1) was found with mulching (M2) than non mulching (M1). The significantly more Net Return found in CS2 (Rice-Potato-Jute) followed by CS1 (Rice-Rice) and CS3 (Rice-Potato-Maize) respectively. The effect of Rice-Potato-Jute cropping system over tillage, mulch and fertilizer on system rice equivalent yield on was lowest (6853 kg ha^-1) in conventional tillage with 75% Recommended Dose of Fertilizer +25% Nitrogen through vermicompost interaction and highest value found in 16972 kg ha^-1in minimum tillage with 100% RDF interaction. The cost-benefit ratio was found significantly more in CS2 (Rice-Potato-Jute) followed by CS1 (Rice-Rice) and CS3 (Rice-Potato-Maize).

1. Introduction

Agriculture is the backbone of the Indian economy.

Research on minimum tillage and mulching has been more identified and popularized by different group of researchers throughout the world for improving sustainable productivity. The practice of mulching protects the soil against the direct impact of raindrop &

surface crust formation & reduces evaporation losses, check weed infestation, increase water infiltration rate, improve soil fertility & also improve plant growth.

Minimum tillage involves considerable soil disturbance, though to a much lesser extent than that associated with convention tillage. Minimum tillage aimed at reducing tillage to the minimum necessary for ensuring a good seedbed, rapid germination,

a satisfactory stand and favourable growing condition and increased soil organic matter and reduced operation costs (Lal et al., 1994; Malicki et al., 1997). The minimum tillage systems can have considerable impact on the environment through its influences on soil structure which substantially affect water quality, nutrients, sediments, pesticides and air quality and greenhouse effect (Holland, 2004; Hobbs, 2007).

Many researchers (Six et al., 2000; Bhattacharyya et al., 2009, Kumar et al., 2016) were worked on different tillage practices and many other researchers (Singh et al., 2004;

Sharma et al., 2011; Vijay Kumar, 2014) were worked on different mulching techniques. So, the combination of tillage-mulch practices with cropping systems may have

___________________

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

(2)

58 synergistic effects. Adoption of the more appropriate

tillage-mulch-crop combination with regards to profitability is essential. Moreover, interactions among soil conditions, management practices and crops are influenced by variability within a system (Chivenge et al., 2007). Therefore, the present investigation was framed to analyse the economics of three rice based cropping system under minimum tillage and mulching condition.

2. Materials and methods

The experiment was comprised of three rice-based cropping system viz. Rice-rice (CS1), rice-potato-maize (CS2) and rice-potato-jute (CS3). Treatment details of the experiment were given below-

Main plots (Tillage × Cropping Systems) – 6 (a) Tillage – 2

T₁: Minimum tillage/SRI in rice, (one tillage operation is less than conventional tillage)

T₂: Conventional tillage (b) Cropping Systems -3

CS₁: Rice-Rice CS₂: Rice-Potato-Jute CS₃: Rice-Potato-Maize B. Sub plots (Mulch × Fertilizer) – 4

(a) Mulch – 2 M₁: No mulch,

M₂: Crop residue mulch ( Rice straw 5 t/ha)

(b) Fertilizer -2

F₁: Recommended dose of fertilizer F₂:75% RDF and 25% N through

vermicompost

Four factor factorial experiment was laid out in a split plot design where two factors viz. cropping system and tillage were considered as main plot treatments in (3x2) factorial. Mulching and fertilizer were considered as sub plot treatments in (2x2) factorial. All 3x2x2x2=24 treatments were replicated thrice in this layout. Statistical technique suitable for analysis split plot design was followed where error-1 will be used to estimate the main plot effects and error-2 will be used to estimate the sub plot effects along with all interaction effects related to main plot treatments. Standard error of mean and least significant difference (p<0.05) values were calculated whenever needed. Rice (BCKV-1) was grown in kharif season (20 cm × 15 cm). Potato (Kufri jyoti) and was grown in rabi season. Jute (JRO- 50) and maize (Hybrid- BN-1) were grown under irrigated pre-kharf season.

Mulching was done with dry paddy straw @ 5 t ha^-1 (0.43 % nitrogen and C:N ratio= 90:1) after 5 days of germination. Half the nitrogen and full P and K fertilizer was applied as basal dose and remaining nitrogen was applied in two equal splits in top dressing.

3. Study site

The location of the experimental site was in the hot, humid subtropics under AICRP on IFS at the Central Research Farm, Gayeshpur, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, West Bengal, India. Gayeshpur is situated in the in New Alluvial zone of West Bengal at 23º North latitude and 89º East longitude at an altitude of 9.75 m above the mean sea level (Agro-ecological zone- 15.1).

The experimental site receives an average annual rainfall of approximately 1576mm and experiences mean annual minimum and maximum temperature of 12.5 ºC and 36.2ºC, respectively. The soil is hyperthermic and clay loam in text (Aeric Haplaquepts, US Soil Taxonomy). The yield was recorded after harvesting of each component crop of the cropping system from each plot and then it is converted to kg ha^-1.The yields of different crops are converted into equivalent yield of rice based on the price of the produce and it is ultimately converted into system rice equivalent yield. The system rice equivalent yield for rice-potato-jute cropping system it is calculated as follows:

REY= [(tuber yield of potato x price of potato)/ price of rice] + [(fibre yield of jute x price of jute)/ price of rice] + rice yield, where price means procurement of price fixed by the Government. For rice-potato- maize it is calculated as follows: REY= [(tuber yield of potato x price of potato)/ price of rice] + [(corn yield of maize x price of corn)/ price of rice] + rice yield. The benefit-cost ratio

(B:C ratio) was worked out by using following formula-

Present value of gross returns B : C ratio = --- Present value of costs

4. Result and discussion

The data on system rice equivalent yield (REY) is given in Table 1. The highest REY (15427 kg ha^-1) was found in CS2 (rice-potato-jute) which followed by CS3 i.e. rice- potato-maize (10659 kg ha^-1) and CS1 i.e. rice-rice (9188 kg ha^-1) which significantly different to each other. A significant increase in REY (kg ha^-1) was found with mulching (M2) than non mulch (M1). Data also revealed that the effect F1 (100% RDF) on REY (kg ha^-1) was much

(3)

59 Table 1: Effect of cropping system, tillage, mulch and fertilizer on SREY (kg ha^-1)

C S1

F T1 T2 Mean

M1 M2 Mean M1 M2 Mean M1 M2 Mean

1 8841 11790 10315 9986 10095 10041 9413 10943 10178

2 8837 8757 8547 8841 8653 7847 8589 7805 8197

Mean 8589 10274 9431 9413 8474 8944 9001 9374 9188

C S2

F T1 T2 Mean

1 16198 17746 16972 15658 16179 15918 15928 16962 16445

2 14387 15276 14831 13987 13984 13985 14187 14630 14408

Mean 15292 16511 15902 14822 15081 14952 15057 15796 15427

C S3

F T1 T2 Mean

1 11276 12569 11922 10877 11478 11178 11076 12023 11550

2 9695 9569 9632 9776 10034 9905 9735 9802 9769

Mean 10485 11069 10777 10327 10756 10541 10406 10913 10659

Mean

F T1 T2 Mean

1 12105 14035 13070 12173 12584 12379 12139 13309 12724

2 10806 11201 11003 10868 10290 10597 10837 10746 10791

Mean 11455 12618 12037 11521 11437 11479 11488 12028 11758

S.E. m (±) and CD values due to factorial split plot analysis-

C S T M F C S×T C S×M C SxF TxM T×F M×F

CSxTx M

CS×T×

F

CS×M

×F T×M×F CS×T×

M×F S.E.m (±) 105.02 18.42 138.22 138.22 148.52 239.40 239.40 195.47 195.47 195.47 338.56 338.56 338.56 276.43 478.79 C .D. (5%) 330.93 58.04 435.53 435.53 NS NS NS 615.93 NS 615.93

1066.8

2 NS NS NS NS

C S1: Rice-rice; CS2: Rice-potato-jute; CS3: rice-potato-maize T1 -minimum tillage; T2-conventional tillage

M1 -non mulch; M2-mulch

F1 -100% RDF; F2-75% RDF +25% N through vermicompost

Price: kharif paddy=Rs.14/kg, summer paddy=Rs. 15/kg, potato=RS. 5 Rs/kg, jute: Rs. 22 Rs/kg, maize=Rs.10.00/kg pronounced effect on REY compared to F2 (75% RDF &

25% N through vermicompost). The highest value was 16972 kg ha^-1 in the interaction of CS2 vs. T1 vs. F1 and lowest value was 6853 kg ha^-1in T2 vs. F2 interaction.

It is evident from the Table 2, cropping system has much pronounced effect on net return. A significantly more net return found in CS2 (rice-potato-jute) followed by CS1 (rice-rice) and CS3 (rice-potato-maize) respectively. Data also revealed that a significant increase in net return found

in T1 (minimum tillage) compared to T2 (conventional tillage). The mulch effect (M2) on net return was statistically at par with non mulch (M1). It also found that F1 (100% RDF) gives significantly more net return compared to F2 (75% RDF & 25% N through vermicompost). The highest net return was 154821 Rs. ha^-1 associated with T1 (minimum tillage), F1 (100% RDF) and with mulching in CS2 (rice-potato-jute) cropping system.

(4)

60 Cost-benefit ratio which is defined at the ratio between

total economic return and total cost of cultivation were also influence by various treatments (Table 3). The results showed that a significantly more B: C ratio in CS2 (rice- potato-jute) followed by CS1 (rice-rice) and CS3 (rice- potato-maize) which significantly differ from each other.

From the table it was observed that T1 (minimum tillage) has significantly more B: C ratio than T2 (conventional tillage) irrespective of cropping system. These results are in agreement with those of Sharma et al. (2011) who concluded that maximum B: C ratio was recorded with minimum tillage. Bonciarelli and Archetti (2000) concluded that reducing soil tillage always resulted in notable savings of fuel consumption and working time.

The use of minimum tillage management practices for maize production is increasing because it reduces time, fuel as well as labour requirement. The result also revealed that F1 (100% RDF) has more B: C compared to F2 (75%

RDF & 25% N through vermicompost) irrespective of cropping system.

5. Conclusion

From the experiment it was clearly discriminated that minimum tillage has much pronounced effect on total yield as well as net profit over conventional tillage irrespective of cropping system. It has found that rice- potato-jute cropping system are most profitable cropping system over rice-rice and rice- potato-maize cropping system in New Alluvial Zone of West Bengal. It is also found that 100% recommended dose of fertilizer gave higher profit over 75% recommended dose of fertilizer along with 25% nitrogen through vermicompost application, though it improves soil quality in long-term.

Therefore, minimum tillage along with 100%

recommended dose of fertilizer most suitable cultivation practice with respect to profitability.

6. References

Bhattacharyya, R., Ved, P., Kundu, S., Srivastva, A.K. and H. S. Gupta. (2009). Soil aggregation and organic matter in a sandy clay loam soil of the Indian Himalayas under different tillage and crop regimes. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 132: 126-134.

Bonciarelli, F. and R. Archetti. (2000). Energy saving though reduction of soil tillage. In: Proceedings of the 15^th STRO Conference, Fort Worth, USA.

Chivenge, P.P, Murwira , H.K., Giller, K.E. , Mapfumo , P. and J. Six. (2007). Long-term impact of reduced tillage and residue management on soil carbon stabilization: Implications for conservation agriculture on contrasting soils, Soil and Tillage Research 94:328–337

Hobbs, P. R. (2007). Conservation agriculture: what is it and why is it important for future sustainable food production? Journal of Agricultural Science 145.127-137.

Holland, J. M. (2004). The environmental consequences of adopting conservation tillage in Europe:

reviewing the evidence. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment 103: 1–25.

Kumar, P., Naresh, R. K., Dwivedi, A., Kumar, R., Gangwar, S., Kumar, V. and A. Kumar. (2016).

Wheat(Triticum aestivum l.) cultivar performance and stability among various tillage methods in Western Uttar Pradesh condition.

The Bioscan 11(1): 395-399.

Kumar, V. (2014). Effect of different organic mulching materials on soil properties of NA ‘7’ Aonla (Emblica officinalis gaertn) under rainfed condition of Shiwalik foothills of Himalayas India. The Bioscan 9(1): 561-564.

Lal, R. (1994). Sustainable land use systems and resilience. In Soil resilience and sustainable land use. Proc. Symp. held in Budapest, 28 September to 2 October 1992, including the Second Workshop on the Ecological Foundations of Sustainable Agriculture(WEFSA II) (eds D. J. Greenland & I. Szabolcs), pp 99–

118. Oxford, UK: CAB International.

Malicki, L., Nowicki, J. and Z. Szwejkowski. (1997). Soil and crop responses to soil tillage systems: a Polish perspective. Soil and Tillage Research 43: 65–80.

Sharma, P., Abrol, V. and R. K. Sharma. 2011. Impact of tillage and mulch management on economics, energy requirement and crop performance in maize–wheat rotation in rainfed subhumid inceptisols, India, European Journal of Agronomy 34: 46–51.

Singh, R., Chowdhury, S. R., Kundu, D. K. and K.

Kannan. 2004. Effects of paddy straw mulch on hydrothermal state, nutrient availability, growth and tuber yield of sweet potato (Ipomoeabatatas L.). Advances in Horticultural Science 18:15-20.

Six, J., Elliott, E.T. and K. Paustian. 2000. Soil macroaggregate turnover and microaggregate formation: a mechanism for C sequestration under no-tillage agriculture. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 32: 2099–2103.

(5)

61 Table 2. Effect of cropping system, tillage, mulch and fertilizer on NR (Rs ha^--1)

C S1

F T1 T2 Mean

1 66026 100307 83166 79800 74335 77068 72913 87321 80117

2 45291 44179 44735 50102 15264 32683 47696 29721 38709

Mean 55659 72243 63951 64951 44799 54875 60305 58521 59413

C S2

F T1 T2 Mean

1 140143 154821 147482 129208 129503 129355 134675 142162 138419

2 91172 96620 93896 82204 75155 78680 86688 85887 86288

Mean 115657 125720 120689 105706 102329 104018 110682 114025 112353 C S3

F T1 T2 Mean

1 66233 77334 71783 57277 58698 57987 61755 68016 64885

2 20483 11725 16104 18251 14864 16558 19367 13294 16331

Mean 43358 44529 43944 37764 36781 37273 40561 40655 40608

Mean

F T1 T2 Mean

1 90801 110820 100811 88762 87512 88137 89781 99166 94474

2 52315 50841 51578 50186 35094 42640 51250 46968 47109

Mean 71558 80831 76194 69474 61303 65388 70516 71067 70791

C S T M F C S×T

CS×

M C SxF TxM T×F M×F CSxT xM

CS×T

×F CS×

M×F T×M

×F

CS×T

×M×F S.E.

m (±) 1470 1200 1935 1935 2079 3352 3352 2737 2737 2737 4740 4740 4740 3870 6703 C.D.

(5%) 4633 3783 NS 6097 NS NS NS 8623 NS 8623 14935 NS NS NS NS C S1: Rice-rice; CS2: Rice-potato-jute; CS3: rice-potato-maize

T1 -minimum tillage; T2-conventional tillage M1 -non mulch; M2-mulch

Price: kharif paddy=Rs.14/kg, summer paddy=Rs. 15/kg, potato=RS. 5 Rs/kg, jute: Rs. 22 Rs/kg, maize=Rs.10.00/kg Table 3: Effect of cropping system, tillage, mulch and fertilizer on B:C ratio

C S1

F T1 T2 Mean

1 2.14 2.55 2.35 2.33 2.11 2.22 2.24 2.33 2.28

2 1.63 1.56 1.60 1.68 1.19 1.43 1.66 1.38 1.52

Mean 1.89 2.06 1.97 2.01 1.65 1.83 1.95 1.85 1.90

C S2

F T1 T2 Mean

1 2.62 2.65 2.63 2.44 2.33 2.39 2.53 2.49 2.51

2 1.83 1.82 1.83 1.72 1.62 1.67 2.78 1.72 1.75

Mean 2.22 2.24 2.23 2.08 1.98 2.03 2.15 2.11 2.13

(6)

62 C S3

F T1 T2 Mean

1 1.72 1.78 1.75 1.60 1.58 1.59 1.66 1.68 1.67

2 1.18 1.10 1.14 1.15 1.12 1.14 1.17 1.11 1.14

Mean 1.45 1.44 1.45 1.38 1.35 1.36 1.41 1.39 1.40

Mean

F T1 T2 Mean

1 2.16 2.33 2.24 2.12 2.01 2.06 2.14 2.17 2.15

2 1.55 1.49 1.52 1.52 1.31 1.41 1.53 1.40 1.47

Mean 1.85 1.91 1.88 1.82 1.66 1.74 1.84 1.78 1.81

C S T M F C S×T CS×

M C SxF TxM T×F M×F CSxT xM

CS×T

×F CS×

M×F T×M×

F

CS×T

×M×F S.E.

m (±) 0.013 0.011 0.028 0.028 0.019 0.048 0.048 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.068 0.068 0.068 0.055 0.096 C.D.

(5%) 0.041 0.034 NS 0.087 0.058 NS 0.151 0.123 NS NS 0.213 NS NS NS NS C S1: Rice-rice; CS2: Rice-potato-jute; CS3: rice-potato-maize

T1 -minimum tillage; T2-conventional tillage M1 -non mulch; M2-mulch

Price: kharif paddy=Rs.14/kg, summer paddy=Rs. 15/kg, potato=RS. 5 Rs/kg, jute: Rs. 22 Rs/kg, maize=Rs.10.00/kg